Comprehensive evaluation of structural variant genotyping methods based on long-read sequencing data
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 26, 2025

Following the Dynamics of Structural Variants in Experimentally Evolved Populations
Published on: February 3, 2023
Xiaoke Duan1,2, Mingpei Pan1,2, Shaohua Fan3
1State Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering, Human Phenome Institute, Zhangjiang Fudan International Innovation Center, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200438, China.
Background:
Structural variants (SVs) play a crucial role in gene regulation, trait association, and disease in humans. SV genotyping has been extensively applied in genomics research and clinical diagnosis. Although a growing number of SV genotyping methods for long reads have been developed, a comprehensive performance assessment of these methods has yet to be done.
Results:
Based on one simulated and three real SV datasets, we performed an in-depth evaluation of five SV genotyping methods, including cuteSV, LRcaller, Sniffles, SVJedi, and VaPoR. The results show that for insertions and deletions, cuteSV and LRcaller have similar F1 scores (cuteSV, insertions: 0.69-0.90, deletions: 0.77-0.90 and LRcaller, insertions: 0.67-0.87, deletions: 0.74-0.91) and are superior to other methods. For duplications, inversions, and translocations, LRcaller yields the most accurate genotyping results (0.84, 0.68, and 0.47, respectively). When genotyping SVs located in tandem repeat region or with imprecise breakpoints, cuteSV (insertions and deletions) and LRcaller (duplications, inversions, and translocations) are better than other methods. In addition, we observed a decrease in F1 scores when the SV size increased. Finally, our analyses suggest that the F1 scores of these methods reach the point of diminishing returns at 20× depth of coverage.
Conclusions:
We present an in-depth benchmark study of long-read SV genotyping methods. Our results highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each genotyping method, which provide practical guidance for optimal application selection and prospective directions for tool improvement.
More Related Videos
09:34Targeted Next-generation Sequencing and Bioinformatics Pipeline to Evaluate Genetic Determinants of Constitutional Disease
Published on: April 4, 2018
11:35Screening for Functional Non-coding Genetic Variants Using Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assay EMSA and DNA-affinity Precipitation Assay DAPA
Published on: August 21, 2016
Related Concept Videos
RNA-seq
Before the discovery of RNA-seq, microarray-based methods and Sanger sequencing were used for transcriptome analysis. However, while...
Modern Molecular Taxonomy
Next-generation Sequencing
Next-Generation Sequencing Methods
Although all next-generation methods use different technologies, they all share a set of standard features....
Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs
Copy number variations or CNVs are the structural variations that cover more than 1kb of DNA sequence. The single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), on the other hand, is a single nucleotide change or a point mutation that is found in more than 1%...